The rationalizations for Putin’s aggression against a sovereign and peaceful neighbor up to and including concern for the ‘minority’ ethnic Russian speakers of Donbas can easily be compared to Germany post WWI. The odious irony is the claim that the Jewish Zelensky is running a Nazi regime unlike the semi-fascist, newspeak Putin and his band of homophobic kleptocratic oligarchs.
The Putin apologists who have thus far dominated in this comment section with eloquent wormholes of logic and reasoning fail to ask one question of Putin; why doesn’t he also use their learned reasoning to make his case? Instead, he calls his aggression a special military action to liberate his Ukrainian kin from illiberal, non democratic Nazis, (a little projection never hurt anyone, right?) even if liberation means targeted killings of non strategic civilian centers. We will free you with a boot on your head or kill you in the process for your own good in typical Russian/Soviet style.
Of course we should study the myriad cause and effects of what precipitates certain actions but there are also more important transcendental considerations of the human spirit when confronted with what we believe to be right and wrong and willingly risk everything to that end. It’s, after all, the foundational history of America.
It's hard to see how the "What led to..." part can whitewash our role in opposing a Russian-friendly Ukrainian govt some years back. To bury that underneath in a euphemism about revolution seems to purposely miss the point. It may be convenient to simply blame Putin but that's like saying high gas prices are purely his fault, too. It may have an element of truth but it is hardly accurate.
It remains a point of fascination, and some bewilderment, how in an alleged information age in which we're told so many things are nuanced, that this war is reduced to a crude binary. Ukraine may well be the good guy, but Zelensky himself is not. There is no pro-democracy effort afoot when the country benefitting has taken multiple actions that are explicitly anti-democratic.
A great reflection. As Leo Tolstoy put it succinctly, participants in a war can stop the war by stopping to make it. However all involved must ask themselves difficult questions that Nikita posed. What is all of it for in the end?
I add, "Cui bono?" Who benefits? Especially at any of the decision points. I'm still trying to figure out who in particular intended to gain from Maidan. Who gains by installing carefully chosen actors in important posts in the new government? But again, at each juncture, what really are the choices, and who benefits?
1. Only Putin knows for certain why he chose war over other means.
2. See answer 1
3. This could go very wrong. If Putin thinks Russia is losing, there is no guessing what he will do. The world order has already been changed. It will take decades for Russia to rejoin the world community - if ever. Would anyone sign a treaty with Russia again?
4. I hope for pre 2014 borders. Let Ukraine voters work out the problems within their territory. Russia will have to figure out how to repair the damage to its reputation as a country, a supplier and member of the UN. In addition, Russia must reverse its laws limiting debate and discussion.
5. Like you I support humanitarian aid from my own pocket. I also will vote for those who support US providing military and humanitarian aid.
You ask great questions about Ukraine, a place in which I've been interested since I learned, decades ago, that I had great-grandparents from that ethnic-political maelstrom.
My own rule of thumb is to consider Ukraine as Russia's Mexico. Russia too has a "manifest destiny" and a Wild West border (Ukraine itself means "at the frontier.")
Whereas Mexico has Spaniards and Aztecs, Ukraine has East Slavs, West Slavs, Germans, Jews, and Tatars. Big on diversity, not so big on inclusion and equity, if you catch my drift.
It would be a mistake to consider Ukraine an accident waiting to happen, because it's been happening for centuries.
If the US wants Russia to make nice and stay out of Ukraine, they should consider giving Texas back to Mexico and see what happens.
Hey, maybe the Democrats and Joe Biden are already working on that.
As a constitutional conservative (as opposed to a “national conservative “), in some respects I share your philosophical dilemma. Having lived through the entire Cold War, my initial inclination would be unbridled support for Ukraine. But, some 70 years later, global interconnectivity gives me pause. Sometimes jaw, jaw is better than war, war if you mean what you say. It is a conundrum wrapped in an enigma.
"War is 'Hell"" - General William T. Sherman. And Eastern Europe again discovers the fact. Sad. An oversimplistic truth: "It takes TWO to tango." IMHO the conflict is not as "black and white", "good vs. evil" as the media narratives want us to believe. U.S. meddling contributed to the unfolding collective disaster for both Ukraine and Russia. I final bit of country wisdom: "chickens come home to roost."
I think it's pertinent to objectively evaluate the facts at hand.
1. The United States spent nearly five billion dollars in an effort to overthrow Viktor Yanukovych, in 2014, an elected president who just happened to be pro-russian. I presume we can all agree that this form of "power politics" doesn't lead to peace and harmony.
2. Donbass, which overwhelmingly voted for Yanukovych, decided to separate from what they perceive as inernational intereference in their elections, and the corruption in Kiev.
3. The MINSK agreement was then signed by both parties, with the goal of ending a bloody civil war.
4. Almost every independent journalist agrees that Kiev has shelled Donbass, intermittently, for nearly seven years. They refuse to aknowledge any wrong doing, and so the shellings continue, unabated. Someone has to stop it.
5. NATO claims that Russia is conducting a "false flag operation", yet whenever we are asked to provide evidence of such claims, our diplomats stage a "walk-out" which is eerily similar to the actions of the old Soviet Union.
Sending money to a corrupt regime, hell-bent on subjugating the people in Donbass, doesn't sound like a good use of money.
Can anyone imagine what would happen if postmodernists removed Trump from office by force, then pummeled Texas for seven years because they refused to bend a knee? Can anyone imagine 1.5B in arms being provided to Washington, so that they could subjugate the people of Texas.
You either believe in self determination, or you don't. Peace requires compromise. The MINSK agreement was a good start, and Kiev should have abided by that agreement.
Haim's suffering, which I hope does not include injury, is chosen. The Ukrainian's suffering is unchosen (thrust upon him/her). Haim should not suffer criticism/indignation for the greater act of courage.
The rationalizations for Putin’s aggression against a sovereign and peaceful neighbor up to and including concern for the ‘minority’ ethnic Russian speakers of Donbas can easily be compared to Germany post WWI. The odious irony is the claim that the Jewish Zelensky is running a Nazi regime unlike the semi-fascist, newspeak Putin and his band of homophobic kleptocratic oligarchs.
The Putin apologists who have thus far dominated in this comment section with eloquent wormholes of logic and reasoning fail to ask one question of Putin; why doesn’t he also use their learned reasoning to make his case? Instead, he calls his aggression a special military action to liberate his Ukrainian kin from illiberal, non democratic Nazis, (a little projection never hurt anyone, right?) even if liberation means targeted killings of non strategic civilian centers. We will free you with a boot on your head or kill you in the process for your own good in typical Russian/Soviet style.
Of course we should study the myriad cause and effects of what precipitates certain actions but there are also more important transcendental considerations of the human spirit when confronted with what we believe to be right and wrong and willingly risk everything to that end. It’s, after all, the foundational history of America.
It's hard to see how the "What led to..." part can whitewash our role in opposing a Russian-friendly Ukrainian govt some years back. To bury that underneath in a euphemism about revolution seems to purposely miss the point. It may be convenient to simply blame Putin but that's like saying high gas prices are purely his fault, too. It may have an element of truth but it is hardly accurate.
It remains a point of fascination, and some bewilderment, how in an alleged information age in which we're told so many things are nuanced, that this war is reduced to a crude binary. Ukraine may well be the good guy, but Zelensky himself is not. There is no pro-democracy effort afoot when the country benefitting has taken multiple actions that are explicitly anti-democratic.
A great reflection. As Leo Tolstoy put it succinctly, participants in a war can stop the war by stopping to make it. However all involved must ask themselves difficult questions that Nikita posed. What is all of it for in the end?
The writer asked five excellent questions.
I add, "Cui bono?" Who benefits? Especially at any of the decision points. I'm still trying to figure out who in particular intended to gain from Maidan. Who gains by installing carefully chosen actors in important posts in the new government? But again, at each juncture, what really are the choices, and who benefits?
I am glad Ukraine is fighting back , I just wish there was policy debate rather then elites screaming Putin puppet every time there is a criticism
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
My answers:
1. Only Putin knows for certain why he chose war over other means.
2. See answer 1
3. This could go very wrong. If Putin thinks Russia is losing, there is no guessing what he will do. The world order has already been changed. It will take decades for Russia to rejoin the world community - if ever. Would anyone sign a treaty with Russia again?
4. I hope for pre 2014 borders. Let Ukraine voters work out the problems within their territory. Russia will have to figure out how to repair the damage to its reputation as a country, a supplier and member of the UN. In addition, Russia must reverse its laws limiting debate and discussion.
5. Like you I support humanitarian aid from my own pocket. I also will vote for those who support US providing military and humanitarian aid.
You ask great questions about Ukraine, a place in which I've been interested since I learned, decades ago, that I had great-grandparents from that ethnic-political maelstrom.
My own rule of thumb is to consider Ukraine as Russia's Mexico. Russia too has a "manifest destiny" and a Wild West border (Ukraine itself means "at the frontier.")
Whereas Mexico has Spaniards and Aztecs, Ukraine has East Slavs, West Slavs, Germans, Jews, and Tatars. Big on diversity, not so big on inclusion and equity, if you catch my drift.
It would be a mistake to consider Ukraine an accident waiting to happen, because it's been happening for centuries.
If the US wants Russia to make nice and stay out of Ukraine, they should consider giving Texas back to Mexico and see what happens.
Hey, maybe the Democrats and Joe Biden are already working on that.
As a constitutional conservative (as opposed to a “national conservative “), in some respects I share your philosophical dilemma. Having lived through the entire Cold War, my initial inclination would be unbridled support for Ukraine. But, some 70 years later, global interconnectivity gives me pause. Sometimes jaw, jaw is better than war, war if you mean what you say. It is a conundrum wrapped in an enigma.
"War is 'Hell"" - General William T. Sherman. And Eastern Europe again discovers the fact. Sad. An oversimplistic truth: "It takes TWO to tango." IMHO the conflict is not as "black and white", "good vs. evil" as the media narratives want us to believe. U.S. meddling contributed to the unfolding collective disaster for both Ukraine and Russia. I final bit of country wisdom: "chickens come home to roost."
I think it's pertinent to objectively evaluate the facts at hand.
1. The United States spent nearly five billion dollars in an effort to overthrow Viktor Yanukovych, in 2014, an elected president who just happened to be pro-russian. I presume we can all agree that this form of "power politics" doesn't lead to peace and harmony.
2. Donbass, which overwhelmingly voted for Yanukovych, decided to separate from what they perceive as inernational intereference in their elections, and the corruption in Kiev.
3. The MINSK agreement was then signed by both parties, with the goal of ending a bloody civil war.
4. Almost every independent journalist agrees that Kiev has shelled Donbass, intermittently, for nearly seven years. They refuse to aknowledge any wrong doing, and so the shellings continue, unabated. Someone has to stop it.
5. NATO claims that Russia is conducting a "false flag operation", yet whenever we are asked to provide evidence of such claims, our diplomats stage a "walk-out" which is eerily similar to the actions of the old Soviet Union.
Sending money to a corrupt regime, hell-bent on subjugating the people in Donbass, doesn't sound like a good use of money.
Can anyone imagine what would happen if postmodernists removed Trump from office by force, then pummeled Texas for seven years because they refused to bend a knee? Can anyone imagine 1.5B in arms being provided to Washington, so that they could subjugate the people of Texas.
You either believe in self determination, or you don't. Peace requires compromise. The MINSK agreement was a good start, and Kiev should have abided by that agreement.
Haim's suffering, which I hope does not include injury, is chosen. The Ukrainian's suffering is unchosen (thrust upon him/her). Haim should not suffer criticism/indignation for the greater act of courage.